97.9% of DREAMers ApprovedThe Dept. of Homeland Security has approved 97.9% of illegal immigrants seeking work permits through DHS's deferred action program. This startling figure indicates that DREAMers aren't being carefully vetted. The Washington Free Beacon has more: "Of the cases reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), only 2.1 percent of young illegal aliens have been denied work permits through its deferred action program. Figures released by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) show that of the 465,033 cases reviewed, only 9,578 have been denied." Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies notes, "The low denial rate suggests that applications are not being thoroughly screened. The program rules were designed to make it easy for people to claim eligibility. Applicants can submit un-provable affidavits or easily forged documents to establish eligibility." No doubt they return the favor at the ballot box.

A consistent and solid majority of Americans — 63 percent — crossing party and religious lines favors legislation to create a pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the United States illegally, while only 14 percent support legal residency with no option for citizenship, according a report published Monday by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute.

Those surveyed expressed strong support for citizenship for 11.7 million immigrants in the country without documents just as Congress appears to be shifting away from that approach, with Republican leaders in the House working on measures that would offer legal status without a direct path to naturalization.

Sixty percent of Republicans, 57 percent of independents and 73 percent of Democrats favor a pathway to citizenship, according to the report. Majorities of Protestants, Catholics and Americans with no religious affiliation also support that plan.

The institute found that there is slightly less support for limiting the immigrants to legal residency than there is for a tough enforcement strategy of identifying and deporting them, a policy favored by 18 percent.

This is what I want to hear from Republicans. This is what most of America wants. We don't need the bums in DC or the bums in academia who are the technocrat communists telling us who to let into OUR country. And the masses don't want to hear Freaking CEOS of big corporations running their political mouths off about how we need more immigrants to fill their coffers with low waged positions. We, the people decide who comes here God Damn it! Millions of Americans are unemployed and we have these big companies sending jobs overseas and demanding more immigrants come here to compete and drive down wages even more. How about we get rid of 50% disability and unemployment and these same big shots hire and train some of them.

We cannot keep bringing them on in. We are displacing our own.

Now finally a Republican speaks up for Americans and tells the Google Microsoft Facebook GE oligarchs to shut up. He is not their tool. He was elected by us, not them, to serve us, not them. That is the ticket for '16 folks. The very first time I hear a Repub say what I have been saying for months if not years.

If we don't want a country that is 50% on the dole - we cannot have a country controlled by 5%. The 5% cannot get special privileges. Those on the dole cannot get special benefits. They ALL, top and bottom must play by the same rules.

We lower taxes but they don't get all the breaks most cannot get. Fair and square from bottom to the very top.The Republicans must shed the party of the rich image. They are the party for all Americans.

“America is not an oligarchy… A Republic must answer to the people,” Sessions said today, in a direct response to President Barack Obama’s latest effort to get wealthy California CEOs to increase their support for his unpopular push for increased immigration.

“Congressional leaders must forcefully reject the notion, evidently accepted by the president, that a small cadre of CEOs can tailor the nation’s entire immigration policy to suit their narrow interests,” Sessions declared in a populist statement that contradicts the media’s image of Republican coziness with CEOs.

Sessions’ statement was released shortly before Obama used a San Francisco speech to ask friendly high-tech CEOs in California to revive his failing effort to pass an immigration-boosting bill.

The bill has been blocked by top GOP leaders in the House, who are trying to balance donors’ demands for more workers with voters’ demands for more jobs.

Obama has been working with top CEOs since summer to push the Senate’s immigration expansion that would welcome 30 million immigrants, plus millions of temporary guest workers, over the next decade.

That influx would import roughly one immigrant or guest-worker for every American aged 11 to 21, or one immigrant for every American teenager in 2012. Current law allows 1 million immigrants and 700,000 guest workers to enter the country each year.

The push is being supported by numerous billionaires, including New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Fox News’ Rupert Murdoch and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg.

Since 2007, progressive and business groups have spent more than $1.5 billion on advocacy and lobbying to pass an immigration bill, despite massive unemployment, stalled salaries and negative polls. Other business groups have been pressured by the federal government and progressives to provide rhetorical support for the push.

Obama’s alliance with the wealthy CEOs is mutually beneficial. The CEOs would gain because high immigration will lower many Americans’ salaries and boost shareholders’ value. Progressives would gain a lock on political power once immigration boosts the number of government-dependent voters.

Sessions, however, is working alongside various U.S. groups to raise Americans’ wages by lowering immigration.

Polls shows Sessions’ populist low-immigration, high-wage pitch is popular, but his allies have far less less money or media coverage than Obama and his allies.

On Nov. 21, Sessions held a press conference in D.C. with Americans4Work, where he slammed CEOs who demand more immigrants.

“These business people do not get to set the [immigration] policy for the United States of America. They do not represent the United States of America, they represent their special interests… [and] I represent 4 million Alabamians and 300 million Americans,” Sessions said.

Sessions was backed up by Jan Ting, a law professor at Temple University, who told the conference that the current high-immigration, low-wage economy is “Blade Runner with food stamps.”

“Blade Runner” is a 1982 science-fiction movie in which most Americans are jobless and trapped in a violent, poverty-stricken nation.

After two decade of low-skill and high-skill immigration, California’s middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the wealthy and the poor is expanding.

The Americans4Work group has no “anger or animosity towards any immigrant,” said Thomas Broadwater, the group’s president. “Instead, we are fiercely and passionately pro-American.” The group gets no donations from business.

But Sessions acknowledged that many senators echo industry’s talking points when they’re asked by Americans about the issue.

“So many of my colleagues in the Senate, when they’re out campaigning, when they’re asked about immigration, without much thought, they say things like ‘I believe in immigrants, we’re a nation of immigrants, we’ve got to end this lawlessness, and I‘m for fixing the fence and the border, but really, we need more immigrants,’” Sessions said.

“They have not thought through the implications of the economic condition of America at this time,” Sessions told the press conference.

“The fundamental question we need to talk about is what would be the right [level] of immigrants.. [and] who it is we should give priority to,” he said.

“We’re a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation… [and] we have a responsibility, a moral duty, to our citizens, to make their lives better, and we’re not doing a very good job,” Sessions said.

Mark Levin actually discussed this same topic on his radio show yesterday 11/26/13. He agrees with me completely. It can be downloaded from his website.

There are many computer programmers here who cannot find jobs and whose wages have been stagnant. So we need endless immigrants to compete endlessly keeping wages low while cost of living keeps going up.

That said, the real point is FINALLY we have a prominent Republican speaking to the unfair power of the extreme wealthy. We are all for people to become wealthy. I am. I wish I was one. But when they then start getting benefits the rest of us don't that they use to tell the rest of us what to do and setting policy for their own ends, then we have a problem. That is what the phrase "1% ers" is about. Finally s few Repubs speaking about this. I believe if more did then we would win by a landslide.

"Saudi Arabia is the world’s second biggest source of [expatriate and illegal expatriate] remittances, only behind the US, with outflows of nearly $28bn last year, according to estimates by the World Bank. “Millions of dollars of Saudi flows will vanish. Riyadh has defended the expulsions, saying illegal expatriates have had months to legalise their status. The kingdom, which shares 1,800km of porous, mountainous borders with Yemen, had for years complained that the Yemeni government was not doing enough to stop illegal immigrants, drug dealers, armed militants or members of al-Qaeda from crossing to the kingdom."

"Riyadh has said it wants to forcibly expel as many as 2m of the foreign workers, including hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians, Somalis, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who make up around a third of the country’s 30m population. "

Despite the hyperventilating tone below, this sounds exactly like something Boener would do.

==============================John Boehner ADMITS He Will Be Pushing AMNESTY for Illegals -- Select Here to DEMAND Congress SECURE the BORDER Now!

ALERT: We WARNED you that this was about to happen: Breitbart.com is reporting that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is planning to push AMNESTY legislation through Congress -- but he's waiting until after the primary filing deadline for candidates, in order to prevent Tea Party candidates from challenging GOP lawmakers who support amnesty in 2014:

"Scott Braddock reported on Tuesday that 'in recent weeks, various Texas business interests have told Quorum Report that Boehner has been telling them that he will start holding immigration votes not long after the filing deadline has passed... what was made clear was that Boehner felt the need to protect House Republican incumbents who are otherwise seen as conservative but have expressed an openness to immigration reform that includes a robust guest worker program.'"

This shouldn't surprise you -- as we already told you, Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) let slip some VERY DISTURBING news this week. As reported in the Las Vegas Sun:

"Although a minority of Republicans would have to join with Democrats to pass immigration reform legislation containing a pathway to citizenship for people in the United States illegally, Reid said Boehner is 'going to cave in.'"

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: The Democrat leader of the Senate says that the Republican leader of the House is going to CAVE IN on AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS -- and now we see WHY he believes that!

This means there has to be MORE pressure from patriotic Americans like US to STOP that from happening -- so it's once again up to YOU AND I to KEEP PRESSURE on Congress to SAY NO TO AMNESTY!

SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, DEMANDING THEY SAY NO TO ANY VOTE ON "IMMIGRATION REFORM" -- DEMAND A SECURE BORDER BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS EVEN DISCUSSED:SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW!

Or Select Here to Send a Free Message to YOUR Congressmen!

You didn't think that the liberal push for AMNESTY for illegal aliens was over, did you?

It's NOT. Congress is preparing to push HARD for it, AGAIN. The only problem is that this time, it's REPUBLICANS who are leading the charge. As reported at The Right Scoop, Mark Levin opened his show this week explaining how Republican "leaders" are now pushing for amnesty again, DESPITE their rhetoric that "we should just focus on Obamacare."

Just as the Washington Times is reporting: "House Speaker John A. Boehner announced Tuesday that he has hired a longtime advocate of legalizing illegal immigrants to be an adviser, signaling that the Republican is still intent on trying to pass an immigration bill during this congressional session.

Immigrant rights advocates cheered the move as a sign of Mr. Boehner's dedication to action. Those who want a crackdown on illegal immigration said the top Republican in the House has moved closer to embracing amnesty by hiring Rebecca Tallent, a former staffer for Sen. John McCain and fellow Arizona Republican Jim Kolbe."

DID YOU GET THAT? Boehner IS actually about to CAVE IN! The headline of that article says it all: "HOLA: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House"! And Harry Reid himself said, "I think there's going to be so much pressure on the House that they'll have to pass it!"

Have you ever heard of a "Disinformation Campaign," to mislead people into thinking that one thing is true, when just the opposite is true?

That's what's happening right now, with Republicans in Congress.

The news headlines were everywhere recently: "House Majority Whip McCarthy Says No Immigration Reform In 2013"; "Immigration reform is dead for the year, top GOP reformer says"; "No immigration reform vote in the House this year"... article after article, insisting that we don't have to worry about Congress passing any bills this year that would give Amnesty to illegal aliens. "Relax, don't worry, we aren't going to do that, move along, nothing to see here!"

There's just one problem with reports that "Immigration Reform Is Dead": Apparently, it's NOT TRUE.

This is what was all over the news before Boehner's hiring announcement: "The third-ranking House Republican told immigration advocates that lawmakers won't vote this year on the issue, confirming what many had long assumed" (FoxNews)... "In what will be seen as another blow to immigration reform's chances, a top pro-reform Republican in the House concedes House Republicans are not going to act on immigration reform this year" (Washington Post)... "A top Republican lawmaker told protesters he met with in his home district in California this week that the House of Representatives would not have time this year to vote on any immigration measure" (New York Times)...

But there have been others items in the news already, too -- and they contradict all of these hopeful headlines: "Don't count Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus among those who believe comprehensive immigration reform is dead this Congress. Despite exasperation among reform advocates that the House has refused to vote on any major immigration bill -- particularly the Senate-passed legislation -- Priebus said that his 'gut' feeling is that the House will indeed pass an immigration overhaul in the next 14 months." -- Politico

"With a year to go until the midterm elections, immigration reform advocates hoping to jump-start debate on Capitol Hill are planning to target a handful of Republican lawmakers most likely to suffer political consequences next year if Congress fails to act on immigration reform... Organizers said the goal of the campaign is to pressure the lawmakers to match their public statements by lobbying colleagues and House Republican leaders to permit votes on a series of immigration bills introduced in recent months." -- Washington Post

"Let me set the record straight: Comprehensive immigration reform is not dead in the House... We are seeing a lot of action and momentum around comprehensive immigration reform." -- Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, on NBCLatino

Even the liberal Washington Post is admitting, "GOP leaders have not scheduled a vote on reform this year, but they haven't ruled one out." IN OTHER WORDS, WE STILL HAVE WORK TO DO!"

And that's not all: did you hear what Barack Hussein Obama said about the possibility of passing AMNESTY for ILLEGAL ALIENS in Congress? CBS News reported: "In a meeting with business leaders to discuss immigration reform, President Obama predicted that there are enough votes in the House to pass the contentious issue... 'what's been encouraging is that there are a number of House Republicans who have said we think this is the right thing to do as well,' Mr. Obama said Tuesday at the White House. 'It's my estimation that we actually have the votes to get comprehensive immigration reform done in the House right now.'"

YOU READ THAT RIGHT: as the story's headline said, Obama believes that the "House has votes to pass immigration reform" -- in other words, they're preparing to ram AMNESTY for illegals down our throats!

WE HAVE TO STOP THEM! SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, DEMANDING THEY SAY NO TO ANY VOTE ON "IMMIGRATION REFORM" -- DEMAND A SECURE BORDER BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS EVEN DISCUSSED:SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW! Or Select Here to Send a Free Message to YOUR Congressmen!

Pressure is building on Republicans to push through a vote in Congress on a bill giving AMNESTY to millions of illegal aliens -- which means it's up to AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZENS to fight back and STOP THE AMNESTY!

New media reports say that the pressure is coming from the combined forces of the radical left (no surprise there) AND big business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, who are willing to sell America out to get cheaper labor... while millions of our citizens are already out of work! According to an article in the Daily Caller: "Business and progressive groups rallied at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Oct. 29 to reassure Speaker of the House John Boehner that he'll get their political support if he schedules a major vote on immigration. 'He's said in the press that the House should take up immigration reform and he plans to do it,' said Randel Johnson, the chamber's vice president for immigration. 'I think he want to get this done, but it is our job to show that there is support in the business community and the evangelical community and in other conservative Republican groups that they'll be there to back him up when he makes his decisions... We've got his back,' said Johnson, a former congressional staffer, who has known Boehner for 20 years."

THAT'S RIGHT -- IT'S "POLITICS AS USUAL" FOR THE PRO-AMNESTY CROWD -- AND THEY'RE PUSHING HARD FOR CONGRESS TO PASS AMNESTY, UNLESS WE STOP THEM! WE MUST TAKE ACTION NOW!

So now we know: "big business" is teaming up with "big socialists" to push AMNESTY! And it's no secret that they think they can win; the "cat is out of the bag" -- House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has told the media that she believes "there is a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives ready to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul bill" -- in other words, she thinks they have enough votes to pass the AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS bill that the Senate already rammed through!

But wait -- the Democrats are in charge of the Senate, so that's how liberals were able to pass their AMNESTY bill. So how could they pass it in the GOP-controlled House? Simple, says Pelosi: with "Republicans having publicly expressed support for a path to citizenship, we believe the votes are there on a bipartisan basis to pass a bill," she wrote on Facebook.

SHE'S RIGHT -- now we have PROOF that Republicans are ready to help them do it. Our friends at ALIPAC have now provided a list of 32 GOP members of Congress who have indicated they are willing to support granting amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. as part of a broader immigration "reform" package. Or, as ALIPAC put it, this is a "TRAITOR LIST with contact info and proof of amnesty stance"!

YOU READ THAT RIGHT -- REPUBLICANS ARE READY TO HELP PASS AMNESTY, UNLESS WE STOP THEM! THIS MAY BE OUR ONLY CHANCE, IF WE TAKE ACTION NOW! SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS, DEMANDING THEY SAY NO TO ANY VOTE ON "IMMIGRATION REFORM" -- DEMAND A SECURE BORDER BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE IS EVEN DISCUSSED:SEND YOUR MESSAGE NOW! Or Select Here to Send a Free Message to YOUR Congressmen!

I disagree with this piece. I find this to be an emminently reasonable compromise.

Immigration Compromise?by Jason L. RileyDec. 23, 2013 2:01 p.m. ET

The immigration debate in Washington boils down to a debate over how to handle the country's 11 million or so illegal residents. A Washington Post editorial over the weekend suggested a compromise: Let them stay but don't give them citizenship.

It's not clear that President Obama would agree to such a deal, since it would effectively make 11 million people second-class citizens—able to live and work here legally but unable to vote or qualify for certain benefits. It's also not clear that restrictionist Republicans would be satisfied with this outcome, since many in that camp consider anything short of deportation to be amnesty.

"Republican hard-liners could still insist (and many no doubt would) that providing deportation relief to more than 11 million illegal immigrants amounts to amnesty, too, even without the hope of citizenship," says the Post. "They would prefer mass round-ups or, for the more politically correct, 'self-deportation'—a polite way of saying that local authorities should make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants, most of whom have lived and worked in this country for years, that they will simply pack up and leave."

What the paper is suggesting is a defensible position, and calling it something akin to South African apartheid or the Jim Crow era is off-base. Those systems punished people for who they were, not because they had done anything wrong. Denying people who want to live here certain rights because they came here illegally or over-stayed a visa is hardly out of bounds. In the U.S. we routinely deny people rights as a form of punishment for bad behavior. People in jail can't vote. People convicted of certain crimes can't legally purchase guns or hold certain jobs or be around young children.

The real question is whether cutting such a deal is in the long-term interest of the GOP. Many Republicans look at the illegal population and see simply 11 million new Democratic voters. They oppose citizenship mainly because they want to deny these foreign nationals access to the ballot box. But even if the parties (and the White House) could agreed to a compromise along the lines of what the Post is suggesting, the children of these illegal aliens would be full citizens and allowed to vote. How will they view the GOP's treatment of their parents?

THis guy Priebus really sounds like a person who has been bribed [to say this stuff]. Bought off by business interests?

I'm with Coulter. I have no clue how any Republican can try to argue having tens of millions more immigrants who vote Democrat to attain benefits confiscated from people who have lived here longer and doled to them is good for the party, country or present day US citizens. I just have no clue.

*****RNC’s Priebus: ‘General consensus’ that something big has to happen on immigration

By David Sherfinski

The Washington Times

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus said Wednesday that there’s a “general consensus” in his party that something big needs to happen on overhauling the country’s immigration laws and that more specifics would be unveiled this week at House Republicans’ annual retreat.

“I think politically speaking it’s a mixed bag, but the question is whether or not it’s something we have to do as a country, and I think that’s what’s trumping the political answer,” Mr. Priebus said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “You see in our party, whether it’s [Kentucky Senator] Rand Paul, who’s called for massive immigration reform, or [Florida Senator] Marco Rubio, I think you have general consensus that something big has to happen.”

Mr. Priebus said House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, has pledged to come up with a set of principles at the party retreat this week and the principles would be shared with the press “as soon as it was done.”

“So that’s a commitment from the Speaker of the House, and there’s a commitment among the most conservative members of our party and the most moderate members of our party that it’s something that we have to get serious about, and I think you’re seeing that,” he said.****

From drudge but I think he is right. Immigration leniency is bad for American workers. Look we can always scour the world and find people who will do any work whatsoever for less than someone who is already here. Allow them in by the tens of millions and at the same time raise the minimum wage. It is all crazy.

Yesterday afternoon, before President Obama's State of the Union Address, Senator Jeff Sessions' staff hand-delivered to each Republican member of the House an important memo on the so-called immigration reform bill being debated on Capital Hill. The 3-page document, written by Sessions, argues that pushing the current immigration legislation forward is bad politics, bad policy, and that there's a better way for Republicans.

Sessions believes House Republicans are at risk of falling into President Obama's trap. "[A]ccording to news reports, House Republican leaders are instead turning 2014 into a headlong rush towards Gang-of-Eight style 'immigration reform,'" writes Sessions. "They are reportedly drafting an immigration plan that is uncomfortably similar to a 'piecemeal' repackaging of the disastrous Senate plan—and even privately negotiating a final package with Democrat activists before consulting with their own members."

It's bad politics, Sessions writes. "In the rush to pass an immigration bill, there has been a near absence of any serious thought about the conditions facing American workers. The last 40 years has been a period of record immigration to the U.S., with the last 10 years seeing more new arrivals than any prior 10- year period in history. This trend has coincided with wage stagnation, enormous growth in welfare programs, and a shrinking workforce participation rate. A sensible, conservative approach would focus on lifting those living here today, both immigrant and native-born, out of poverty and into the middle class—before doubling or tripling the level of immigration into the U.S.

"Republicans have convinced themselves that Hispanics are a 'natural' constituency for their party because they are hard workers, religious and family-oriented. ... According to Pew, 53 percent of babies born to Hispanic immigrants are to single mothers, about twice the rate of whites. As for Republican 'family values,' Pew found a majority of Hispanics, 53 percent, support same-sex marriage. ... In a recent column, Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative political analyst, cited an American National Election Study that asked Hispanics their views about the free market vs. big government solutions to problems. Schlafly noted, 'Only 17.9 percent of Hispanics responded "the less government the better," and 85.3 percent said "a strong government involvement is required to handle economic problems."' This is not the profile of a future Republican voter."

"Republicans have convinced themselves that Hispanics are a 'natural' constituency for their party because they are hard workers, religious and family-oriented. ... According to Pew, 53 percent of babies born to Hispanic immigrants are to single mothers, about twice the rate of whites. As for Republican 'family values,' Pew found a majority of Hispanics, 53 percent, support same-sex marriage. ... In a recent column, Phyllis Schlafly, a conservative political analyst, cited an American National Election Study that asked Hispanics their views about the free market vs. big government solutions to problems. Schlafly noted, 'Only 17.9 percent of Hispanics responded "the less government the better," and 85.3 percent said "a strong government involvement is required to handle economic problems."' This is not the profile of a future Republican voter."

"'Only 17.9 percent of Hispanics responded "the less government the better," and 85.3 percent said "a strong government involvement is required to handle economic problems."' This is not the profile of a future Republican voter."

This is the dilemma in a nutshell. The immigration thing is important but compared to above stated fact it is only a sideshow.

The Latinos who are here legally as well as the ones who are coming here illegally are overwhelming supporters of big social welfare programs. Why?

Simple. They receive these benefits by huge margins.

"Republicans have convinced themselves that Hispanics are a 'natural' constituency for their party because they are hard workers, religious and family-oriented"

I have been posting more or less this for years. Only an idiot can think ideology will trump cold hard cash.

It is not just the Latinos either. It is also Asians and Africans and Carribbeans. Even many western Europeans. Anyone do a poll of the 50,000 illegal Irish in the NY met area?

The Eastern Europeans may be the only group who might swing more towards Republicans.

One would think Chinese would also be Republicans but they are by majority not.

We will have to have a giant crash for these people to change their minds. No other way I see.

Jews are some sort of exception. They are and always have been different. They vote Dem not so much for benefits (IMO) but because of some warped ideology.Their beloved Democratic party. As we can see these liberal Jews will even sell out Israel for their beloved party.

They also participate tooth and nail to give the country away to the world. The country that they as a group have done so well in. Despite discrimination. I read once only those of the Lutheran religion have done better.

What else is there to say?

It is nearly check mate.

Don't think Hillary will try to have it both ways. She will position herself as a champion to all these interest groups while trying to distance herself from the Brock as someone who is a champion for America.

I don't see anything other than a crash that might, might wake people up to the dangers of the expanding state.

"Don't think Hillary will try to have it both ways. She will position herself as a champion to all these interest groups while trying to distance herself from the Brock as someone who is a champion for America."

Yep. Just when they are achieving success the African Americans are seemingly unwittingly giving their country away to the world. Some I know from personal talks do see this but....

******INVASION USA

Republicans to rescue Dems, betray the nation

Thomas Sowell likens illegal aliens to embezzlers or burglars 'living in the shadows'

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. He is the author of 28 books, including "Dismantling America" and "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy."

Some supporters of President Obama may be worried about how he and the Democrats are going to fare politically, as the problems of Obamacare continue to escalate and it looks like the Republicans have a chance to win a majority in the Senate.

But Democrats may not need to worry so much. Republicans may once again come to the rescue of the Democrats, by discrediting themselves and snatching defeat from the very jaws of victory.

The latest bright idea among Republicans inside the Beltway is a new version of amnesty that is virtually certain to lose votes among the Republican base and is unlikely to gain many votes among the Hispanics the Republican leadership is courting.

One of the enduring political mysteries is how the Republicans can be so successful in winning governorships and control of state legislatures, while failing to make much headway in Washington. Maybe there are just too many clever GOP consultants inside the Beltway.

When it comes to national elections, just what principles do the Republicans stand for? It is hard to think of any, other than their hoping to win elections by converting themselves into Democrats lite. But voters who want what the Democrats offer can vote for the real thing, rather than Johnny-come-lately imitations.

Listening to discussions of immigration laws and proposals to reform them is like listening to something out of “Alice in Wonderland.”

Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them. One of the big problems that those who are pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” want solved is how to help people who came here illegally and are now “living in the shadows” as a result.

Is liberty on life support for good? There is hope … read Manny Edwards’ book “The Truth About Liberty: How the Tea Party Can Save America”

What about embezzlers or burglars who are “living in the shadows” in fear that someone will discover their crimes? Why not “reform” the laws against embezzlement or burglary, so that such people can also come out of the shadows?

Almost everyone seems to think that we need to solve the problem of the children of illegal immigrants, because these children are here “through no fault of their own.” Do people who say that have any idea how many millions of children are living in dire poverty in India, Africa or other places “through no fault of their own,” and would be better off living in the United States?

Do all children have some inherent right to live in America if they have done nothing wrong? If not, then why should the children of illegal immigrants have such a right?

More fundamentally, why do the American people not have a right to the protection that immigration laws provide people in other countries around the world – including Mexico, where illegal immigrants from other countries get no such special treatment as Mexico and its American supporters are demanding for illegal immigrants in the United States?

The very phrase “comprehensive” immigration reform is part of the bad faith that has surrounded immigration issues for decades. What “comprehensive” reform means is that border control and amnesty should be voted on together in Congress.

Why? Because that would be politically convenient for members of Congress, who like to be on both sides of issues, so as to minimize the backlash from the voting public. But what “comprehensive” immigration reform has always meant in practice is amnesty up front and a promise to control the border later – promises that have never been kept.

The new Republican proposal is to have some border-control criteria whose fulfillment will automatically serve as a “trigger” to let the legalizing of illegal immigrants proceed. But why set up some automatic triggering device to signal that the borders are secure, when the Obama administration is virtually guaranteed to game the system, so that amnesty can proceed?

What in the world is wrong with Congress taking up border security first, as a separate issue, and later taking responsibility in a congressional vote on whether the border has become secure? Congress at least should come out of the shadows.

The Republican plan for granting legalization up front, while withholding citizenship, is too clever by half. It is like saying that you can slide halfway down a slippery slope.

Republicans may yet rescue the Democrats, while demoralizing their own supporters and utterly failing the country.

Ingraham asks why have borders?Good question.Why bother?Why have a defined "country"?Why bother?Why not just an open source country?

Ingraham won this debate, but also she filibustered and cut off Will's points.

Both sides don't have an answer for their own blind spot. As you say, are we going to accept having a nation with no borders or sovereignty? The answer is No. For the other side, what are we going to do with these people who are here? Are we going to round them up and send them home as the law requires. The answer is No. We aren't and we won't. So, if not, we can either update our laws or let them remain meaningless and unenforced.

The status quo is amnesty. The 'reform' proposals all involve some form of amnesty. More illegals are still coming in at will, contributing little and burdening scarce resources.

We need a legal immigration system so good that people will accept law enforcement on illegal immigration.

For Dems, the problem is best unsolved, making them undesirable negotiating partners. R's are divided and waffling, making them lousy negotiating partners. Public debate on this tears apart the party. R's didn't do anything about it when they controlled the House, Senate and White House, 2003-2006. Dems didn't do anything on it when they had control 2009-2010. No one trusts this President, administration or Justice Department to enforce an old law or a new law. Maybe Chuck Shumer stumbled close to the truth. Wait until we elect a functional government, hopefully after 2017, and if you have a solution, bring it forward then.

Look closely at the graph showing levels of deportation. The numbers rose for many years UNTIL 2008 or so. Then they level off. There is a slight uptick in 2012 just before the election (presumably so he can jaunt around claiming how he is defending the borders) then it starts to decline. The trend is down not up since he is in office. First time in decades.

Using data from the U.S. Census, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that there were eight million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. labor force in 2010. The Migration Policy Institute estimated the number a bit lower -- 6.4 million -- in 2011, with retail trade employing 920,000, construction 910,000, agriculture 540,000 and manufacturing 520,000. Even using the lower Institute number, that means there is more than one undocumented worker for every one of the six million employers in the U.S.

Who is employing them all?

Well, a guy I've known for years is one. He owns an east-coast landscaping and plant business with around 100 employees, at least half of whom are undocumented Mexican immigrants.

About a dozen years ago, one of his biggest competitors started using undocumented Mexican laborers. At the time, the landscaper’s firm suffered high turnover and low productivity, and finding employees to do the actual landscaping -- his company's bread and butter -- was difficult.

“We’ve never had anyone come in here looking for work,” he told me, on condition that I withhold his name. He found many of the Americans he has hired over the years to be unreliable and unwilling to work hard. Sometimes they quit; other times he has fired them.

Gradually, he started hiring Mexican laborers. All of them were able to provide Social Security numbers, though he understood they were bogus. “We have to have paperwork on these guys,” he said. “We just don’t have to have it be legitimate.”

The Mexican laborers live together in a poor neighborhood in a small city, drive to work together and take as many hours as the boss offers – seven days a week when possible. He pays them the same wages he pays Americans -- one top earner makes $25 per hour, well above the median U.S. wage. Because they're undocumented and most don't have their families with them, the men don't make much of a dent in the U.S. consumer economy. Instead, they send their savings home to their families in Mexico.

There are, of course, complications. The landscaper said he has paid thousands of dollars to coyotes and illegal services to secure passage back to the U.S. for workers who returned to Mexico to visit family. If his employees are stopped at the U.S. border and don't make it back to work, which is happening more frequently, he isn't charged. “I lost a key man," he said, "a skilled stone mason who couldn’t get back in the country.” If his employees do make it back to work, he said, they inevitably reimburse him for the coyote fees.

As the business grew, the landscaper's Mexican workforce also became his recruiting service. “The Mexicans are self-policing,” he said. “If a guy is not working hard, they get rid of him. I don’t even have to say anything. The only people I have to fire are Americans.”

(Francis Wilkinson is a member of the Bloomberg View editorial board. Follow him on Twitter.)*****

Great idea - but why stop there. Reduce taxes to zero on employers, expand entitlements, and increase all taxes on those in the middle. Additionally simply open up the borders so all US jobs can be auctioned off to the world's lowest bidder:

Billionaire software mogul Bill Gates has joined the growing chorus of tech experts who predict that low-skill Americans will face greater unemployment because more jobs are being done by software and robots.

The Microsoft founder, whose net worth is $76 billion, suggested the problem could be fixed by reducing taxes on employers and raising taxes on employees, via the reduction of payroll taxes and the addition of new federal consumption taxes.

The widening recognition of greater low-skill unemployment is also creating a problem for the many executives — including Gates — and lobbyists and legislators pushing for increased immigration. They back the Senate’s immigration bill, which would dramatically increase the supply of foreign labor, despite Americans’ high unemployment rates.

“Software substitution, you know, whether it’s for drivers or waiters or nurses or even, you know, whatever it is you do … is progressing,” Gates told university-trained Washington professionals gathered at a March 13 talk hosted by the American Enterprise Institute.

The growing role of technology “will reduce demand for jobs particularly at the lower end of the skill set. … These things are coming fast,” he said.

“Twenty years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower, and I don’t think people have that in their mental model,” he added, echoing other predictions of low-skill unemployment.

A 2013 “study by Oxford University researchers Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne … [predicted] that nearly half of American jobs are at ‘high risk’ of being taken over by robots in the next decade or two,” National Journal reported in March.

The automation is also impacting higher-skilled professionals. This reporter used the Internet, a cellphone and a laptop to write this and three other diverse stories in one day. More dramatically, a reporter at the Los Angeles Times has developed a software-robot that autonomously reports breaking news about earthquakes.

“Democrats concerned by poverty and inequality — and Republicans who resist the social welfare measures necessitated by poverty and inequality — need to think harder about this [immigration and technology trade-off] question,” said a February article in The Daily Beast.

“I think it’s [a] tough” task to protect the middle class from the impact of automation, billionaire investor and immigration-advocate Steve Case said in December.

“I do think tax structures will have to move away from taxing [companies'] payroll because society has a desire to have employment,” Gates said.

“That’s going to force us to rethink how these tax structures work in order to maximize employment,” he said. One alternative, he said, would be to create consumption taxes — such as a federal sales tax — to hit higher-income people, while also reducing taxes paid by employers for each employee.

“The idea that consumption should be progressively taxed, I think that makes a lot of sense,” he said.

That shift would allow companies to profit by importing low-skill immigrants, even though the immigrants would also have to be supported by taxpayers. For example, the Senate’s June 2013 immigration bill offers conditional amnesty to at least 11.7 million illegal immigrants, who would cost taxpayers roughly $6.3 trillion over the next several decades, according to the Heritage Foundation.

Despite accelerating automation, President Barack Obama and many Democrats are promoting the Senate’s immigration rewrite that would double legal immigration to 46 million over the next 20 years. The bill would also double the inflow of guest workers, to at least 20 million.

The 66 million immigrants and guest workers would compete for jobs against the four million Americans who turn 18 each year, and the 800,000 Americans who graduate with skilled degrees each year.

Currently, the nation accepts one million immigrants and 650,000 non-agriculture immigrants each year, to join the working population of 150 million.

So far, GOP leaders in the House have blocked the Senate’s immigration expansion.****

I wish I had a definitive citation for this (perhaps our Google Fu Master GM can get one for us?) but during the morning chatter show this morning on FOX it was reported that (I'm shocked, absolutely shocked!) that the Obama administration has been misleading us with regard to its assertions about deportations being at an all time high.

Apparently what they are doing is counting a category that was not part of the data previously-- those turned back at the border. If I have it correctly, once this number is excluded from the calculation and it is done as it always has been done, the number is some 70+% less than reported i.e. pretty much a record low.

I think the Feds should have a website that lists the jobs of every American and offers them to anyone else in the world who is capable to bid on doing that job for less. Why not? As long as they promise to vote Democrat:

*****by Matthew Boyle 25 Mar 2014

Fully 98 percent of individuals deported from the United States in 2013 were either criminals, apprehended while illegally crossing the border, or had been previously deported, according to a new analysis from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

The three-page document, labeled a “Critical Alert” by the senator’s office, found three executive actions by President Barack Obama providing amnesty to groups of illegal aliens meant that virtually no one who did not meet other criteria beyond simply being in the country illegal was deported.

“The evidence reveals that the Administration has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law,” Sessions said in a statement to Breitbart News. “Under the guise of setting ‘priorities’, the Administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States is free to illegally live, work and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing a felony or other serious crime.

Obama's well-known executive action granted virtual amnesty to so-called DREAMers – individuals who claim to have entered the country as minors under their parents' guidance.

Two are lesser known executive actions include an Aug. 23, 2013, DHS directive “expanding that [summer 2012 executive DREAM Act] amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries” and a Dec. 21, 2012, DHS directive “reinforcing that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction.”

In 2013, Sessions’ staff found, 98 percent of ICE’s removals of illegal aliens fit the agency’s “enforcement criteria.” There are four such criteria for illegal aliens to be considered deportation-worthy by ICE: a conviction of committing a serious criminal offense, an apprehension made while an individual is crossing the border, the resurfacing of someone previously deported, or someone having been a fugitive from the law. “Remarkably, the first two categories—border apprehensions (which are not deportations as commonly understood) and convicted criminals—account for 94% of the 368,000 removals (235,000 and 110,000, respectively),” Sessions’ staff wrote in the memo.

Only 0.2 percent of an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who were actually placed into removal proceedings in 2013 in 2013 did not have a violent or otherwise serious criminal conviction on their record. Only .08 percent of the total number of illegal aliens placed into removal proceedings were neither repeat or serial immigration law violators nor convicted of a serious crime. Even with that .08 percent of removals who were not caught crossing the border or being a serial immigration law violator or being convicted of serious crimes, Sessions’ staff notes that ICE officers who communicate with his office say that there is likely some other serious security risk for allowing them to stay in the country that is cause for their removal.

The findings stand in stark contrast to liberal calls on Obama to reduce deportations. Top Hispanic Democrats recently met with Obama at the White House recently about the issue, prompting an announcement about a review at the Department of Homeland Security about how to deport illegal aliens in a more “humane” fashion.

The report was enough to prompt a chorus of outrage from Sessions' like-minded colleagues in the House, who slammed the Obama administration for enacting amnesty by fiat.

“This is another clear warning to anyone who thinks immigration reform is possible under President Obama,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA). “He has repeatedly shown a willingness to enforce the law selectively, while looking the other way when it doesn't fit his agenda.”

“We can add immigration enforcement to the long list of areas where President Obama is selectively enforcing the law,” Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) told Breitbart News in response to Sessions’ new report. “This is part of a repeated pattern of overreach on the part of the Administration and shows their unwillingness to follow the law as it is written—not the law as they want it to be. It’s impossible for Congress to have an open and honest debate on border security when we can’t trust the President to do his job.”

“At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal,” Sessions’ staff wrote. “Those who do not facially meet the Administration’s select ‘priorities’ are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement.”

Sessions’ staff cites August 2013 reports from an ICE raid at Danny’s Car Wash in Phoenix, Arizona, where many workers suspected of being in the country illegally were taken into custody but released shortly thereafter. “Workers suspected of being in the country illegally were taken into custody, but [ICE spokeswoman Amber] Cargile said they would be released within a matter of hours as long as they had no outstanding criminal records,” the Associated Press wrote then.

In another incident in Brownsville, Texas, a dozen illegal aliens were set free at a bus station after being taken into ICE custody because the federal immigration law agency said it “doesn’t consider the group a major threat to our safety.”

Sessions’ staff also cites a 2011 instance where authorities at ICE warned one of their officers he would be subject to disciplinary action if he followed through with his intent to enforce the law by issuing a Notice to Appear in court to an illegal alien “driving the vehicle of a known fugitive without a license.”

“The suspect, who had multiple misdemeanor offenses on his record, was released while the ICE officer was threatened with suspension,” Sessions’ staff wrote.

“The Obama administration’s subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law make enforcement of our immigration laws virtually impossible,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said in an email. “The law-abiding and taxpaying Americans who oppose this executive amnesty policy are paying the price with lower wages and fewer job opportunities.”

“At the same time President Obama hypocritically tells people he is for income equality, he violates federal immigration law, floods the labor market with wage-suppressing illegal aliens, and destroys the chance millions of hard-working Americans have of attaining self-sufficiency and the American dream,” Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said. “It is clear that President Obama believes it is more important to pander to voters based on race than it is to enforce immigration laws that protect American workers’ ability to earn a living wage.”

”Perhaps the most important role of the President is defined in Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, which states that the President ‘shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” Gosar said in reaction to Sessions’ new report. “From President Obama’s capricious ObamaCare delays to his arbitrary refusal to enforce current immigration laws, his transgressions against the Constitution are egregious and must stop. The first step in restoring the rule of law is holding Attorney General Eric Holder – our nation’s chief law enforcement officer – accountable for allowing and participating in the Administration’s blatant disregard for the Constitution.”

“The President should be ashamed of himself for violating his oath of office, violating his Constitutional duty to enforce America’s laws, and making illegal aliens a higher priority than the livelihoods of hard-working Americans,” Brooks said.

It’s tornado season, the springtime tempest, which means the Big Empty of the United States will get another cameo on the nation’s stage. Prepare for the annual montage of heartbreak and houses tossed to the wind, of schools scalped of their roofs and trailer parks reduced to rubble.

What most of us know about the heartland barely extends beyond Dorothy’s house in Kansas, or Sarah Palin pablum about “real Americans.” That’s a shame, because there are two big stories shaping the Great Plains — one of steroidal growth and disruption in the energy boom, the other of the slow death of small-town life. Incongruent as it seems, both are going on at the same time, in the same states.

The oil and natural gas bonanza has made housing in places like Minot, N.D., as competitive as rent-controlled apartments in Manhattan. Of the nation’s 10 fastest-growing metro areas last year, six were in the greater Great Plains, according to the Census Bureau. That includes Fargo and Bismarck in North Dakota and Odessa and Midland in Texas, for those of you seeking full employment in the industrial flatlands.

For all of that, a record one in three of the nation’s counties are dying off — more deaths than births. The emptying of America is happening in Maine and West Virginia, in Michigan, western Pennsylvania and upstate New York. But the most depopulated area is right down the midsection of the United States. An hour’s drive from a boomtown with a spaghetti tangle of pipelines is a ghost town with a grade school that hasn’t seen a kid in 50 years.

If you follow the journey of the befuddled old coot played by Bruce Dern in the movie “Nebraska,” from Billings, Mont., to Madison County, Neb., you go through this landscape of the vanishing. It’s a place of lonely bars and empty diners, of crowded cemeteries and Main Streets where a dogs sleep away the afternoon. In Phelps, Frontier, Gosper or Gage counties, all in Nebraska, there are fewer people now than there were 110 years ago. Farther north and east, a majority of Michigan counties lost population last year.

No amount of homilies to a bygone age will bring people back to these little farm towns on the prairie. More than ever, we are an urban nation — at least three-fourths of the people reside in areas matching that designation — even in the Midwest.

The impulse is either to write off the dying counties as flyover country and a buffalo commons, or to further turn them into a vast oil- and gas-producing zone. But there are other ways to a livable (and that overused word “sustainable”) tomorrow. This future is just below ground level, and at the border’s edge: water and immigration.

The water is the Ogallala Aquifer, a great lake beneath parts of eight states, with enough volume to flood the entire United States in a foot of ancient liquid. And while that sounds like a lot of fresh water, it’s disappearing, because of heavy irrigation. At the current rate, 70 percent of the aquifer will be depleted by 2060, according to a study released last year by Kansas State University.

Oil may seem like the most valuable commodity of the American midsection, but it’s not. Take away water from the Ogallala and you take away life itself. Depopulation, slow now, would accelerate, even beyond the Dust Bowl exodus of the 1930s. This is not idle speculation. Even those in the fact-denial camp of climate change, people who get their science from Rush Limbaugh, know that the Ogallala is being sucked dry. Shallower parts of the aquifer are now empty in parts of the Texas Panhandle.

We can’t make water. But we can slow down the rate at which we use it. The solution would involve sacrifice, and resting croplands that are now saturated with water drawn through straws in the Ogallala. The mess of state and local laws makes a single remedy — say, from Congress — all but impossible. It will take the people who live in the area now and use its water — applying piecemeal conservation but on a broad scale, similar to what is now done with soil conservation districts — to make sure there is life for their grandchildren.

The other resource is people. Without immigrants, many of them illegal, huge parts of the prairie would be left with nothing but the old and dying. “Please come here,” said Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, after the census report on depopulation was released last year. “Immigrants are innovators, entrepreneurs, they’re making things happen.”

In Snyder’s Republican Party, that kind of talk can get you in trouble if you don’t also follow it with a hateful blast at illegals. Look at what happened to Jeb Bush last week. He said many undocumented immigrants come to America as “an act of love” and “an act of commitment” to their families. His comments were thoughtful and truthful. But judging by the reaction among fellow Republicans, you would think he just said something nice about President Obama. Like it or not, immigrants are the only positive population dynamic at play in hundreds of dying counties.

In a year’s time or less, the men and women who want to be the next president will troop out to Iowa, for an inordinate amount of time. The press will parse every poll, deconstruct every gaffe. Seventy of Iowa’s 99 counties are losing people, but you won’t hear anything about that on cable’s news wasteland. So, which is worse: a heartland in trouble, or a system where the big issues — water, land and new blood — are not even part of a democracy’s most important contest?

POTH reporting is like a bad dream where a bunch of scattered images are thrown together but make up no useful story.

"We can’t make water." Actually not true. Water is a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion. We are making it at twice the rate of carbon dioxide: CH4 +2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O. And we don't destroy water by 'using' it. We are moving it around in a closed system, by drinking, flushing, irrigating. Who is he calling fact-deniers? What does any of this have to do with immigration; immigrants could move there, not work, and collect food stamps?

Where do you live that you see 36 states through tornado coverage on television? As (denier) Rush L said after a Republican election victory, the NY Times will have to send foreign correspondents out there to see what is happening. This is what they came up with.

MIAMI (AP) — With three little words, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush set off a fury this week that served as a potent reminder of how difficult the immigration issue remains for his possible presidential ambitions and the Republican Party.

An early GOP establishment favorite, Bush has long urged his fellow Republicans to show more compassion for those who enter the country illegally. But when he described illegal immigration in an interview as an "act of love" by people hoping to provide for their families, the backlash from his own party was swift and stinging.

Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho accused Bush of "pandering." Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and House Speaker John Boehner said the country should enforce the "rule of law." And conservative commentator Michelle Malkin created a new Twitter hashtag: #CancelJebBush.

In a speech Thursday night to an annual gathering of Connecticut Republicans, Bush noted the negative response to his remarks but said he sees no conflict between enforcing the law and "having some sensitivity to the immigrant experience."

Some of the party's most powerful insiders and financiers are concerned immigration could define the coming nominating contest in the way it did in 2012. Like Bush, Texas Gov. Rick Perry was jeered when he implied that his rivals were heartless if they opposed a law that lets some children of undocumented immigrants pay in-state tuition at public colleges.

The 2012 GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, took a hard line and advocated "self-deportation" for those here illegally. He won just 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, the lowest portion for a Republican in 16 years.

"The worst thing that can happen to a political party is not for voters to decide they don't like you," said Alex Castellanos, a GOP consultant and former Romney adviser. "It's for voters to decide you don't like them, and that's where the Republican Party is right now."

The Republican National Committee has urged the GOP to embrace an immigration overhaul, but comprehensive legislation remains stalled in Congress. Action is unlikely in an election year with high stakes. All 435 House seats, and 36 in the Senate, are on state ballots. Republicans need to gain only six Senate seats to win majority control from Democrats. The political calculus makes the GOP's core base of voters critical, so House Republicans want to avoid an immigration fight that could alienate them. But some establishment Republicans say the delay threatens the long-term future of the GOP.

"It's going to kill the Republican Party," said Al Hoffman, a Republican megadonor who chaired George W. Bush's presidential campaigns.

He and others argue the GOP needs a nominee with a "Nixon-goes-to-China mentality"— in which the party leader takes an audacious, if not popular, step— on issues such as immigration. They suggest that's necessary in part to peel away some Hispanic voters from Democrats in 2016.

For Bush, the debate is personal. His wife, Columba, was born and grew up in Mexico. The two met while Bush was an exchange student there; she is now an American citizen.

On Sunday, in an interview with Fox News before an audience at the George Bush Presidential Library in Texas, Bush said immigrants who enter the country illegally should, in fact, pay a penalty. But he added that he viewed such a violation as "a different kind of crime."

"Yes, they broke the law, but it's not a felony," he said. "It's an act of love."

Hispanics are a crucial voting bloc in an increasing number of swing-voting states, from Florida to Colorado to Nevada.

Some see a new opportunity for the GOP to appeal to Latinos, many of whom have soured on President Barack Obama because of his administration's record-setting number of deportations.

"Hispanics are eager to hear from a leader in the Republican Party talk about immigration in the way that Jeb Bush talked about it," said Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, the country's largest Hispanic civil rights organization. "Some may argue that a bold country-first stance on immigration cannot win the nomination, but what is certain is that a divisive, anti-immigration stance does not win the presidency in a nation of immigrants."

In contrast to the 2012 nomination fight, most of the potential 2016 presidential contenders have signaled support for some kind of immigration overhaul. But they remain deeply divided over whether legislation should offer a pathway to citizenship for those living here illegally. After the Senate passed a bipartisan measure last year that would do just that, the barrage of conservative criticism virtually silenced the GOP's most outspoken immigration advocates, including Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.

The furor over Bush's remarks shows the potential perils of picking up the issue, especially in the early voting states that play an outsized role in choosing party nominees. Bush's "act of love" comment was pithy and provocative enough to stir deep discomfort in a party still searching for a single message on the subject. And it challenged GOP officials to disagree without further alienating a voter group they're trying to attract.

"We appreciate the compassion in the statement, but the best compassion you can show a people is to uphold justice," said Tamara Scott, a RNC committeewoman and prominent Christian conservative in Iowa.

Bush, the two-term, Spanish-speaking former governor of a state with a booming Hispanic population, has struggled to articulate his views in a party that has changed dramatically since the last time he ran for office in 2002.

Last year, Bush released a book that championed legal status — but not citizenship— for illegal immigrants, seemingly contradicting his past statements. But in recent months, he has been giving speeches around the country that often include a full-throated defense of an immigration overhaul. Speaking at a recent financial advisers' conference in Florida, Bush lauded immigrants as "the risk takers," arguing that they embody the entrepreneurial spirit of America and invigorate the country's economy.

Katon Dawson, a South Carolina Republican strategist and Perry adviser, said Bush is wise to detail his nuanced positions so that potential rivals can't easily define his immigration stance if he decides to run.

"Look, the word 'amnesty' is a killer" in a Republican primary, Dawson said. "So you've got to take every chance you get to explain yourself ahead of the campaign."

As those of you who follow my hate mail know, I am opposed to running untested candidates against perfectly good incumbent Republican senators this election cycle. It will be a long time before Republicans have as good a year as this to win a Senate majority.

Unfortunately, we have idiots doing the idiot thing, pretending to be "tea partiers," while challenging sitting Republican senators over fairly minor ideological differences.

Anyone opposing an incumbent Republican for any reason other than amnesty is a fraud or an idiot. Right now, immigration and Obamacare are the only things that matter. Since every Republican voted against Obamacare, that leaves only immigration.

Conservatives who ignore amnesty while carping about the debt ceiling, TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Internet tax bill or Benghazi are too stupid to help their country.

Suppose the Senate had passed a bill that would cut Texas out of the Union? Would that get your attention, fake tea partiers? Without Texas, Republicans would immediately lose 38 electoral votes, two senators and 24 members of Congress. (Democrats would lose only 12 House members.)

How would you rate the prospect of repealing Obamacare if Republicans could: never win another presidential election; never win another majority in the House; and never again win a Senate majority? Oh, and how does the expression "President Nancy Pelosi" grab you?

Would that bill be slightly more important to you than the Internet tax bill?

Well, guess what? Amnesty will produce the exact same result as losing the entire state of Texas. In fact, merely continuing our current immigration policies will achieve the same result; it will just take a little longer. (But wow, I'm sure glad we got "Octomom"! What a boon she's been to our American way of life.)

The population of Texas is about 27 million. With amnestied illegal aliens allowed to bring in their cousins and brothers-in-law under our insane "family reunification" policies, the 12 million illegal immigrants already here will quickly balloon to 30 million new voters -- who happen to break 8-to-2 for the Democrats.

Consequently, before running off and staging a primary fight against a sitting Republican, anyone who truly loved his country would ask himself the following three questions:

(1) Does the incumbent Republican support amnesty? And by the way, "Supports amnesty" includes anyone who says one of the following:

-- "We already have de facto amnesty"

-- "What are you going to do -- round up 12 million illegals?"

-- "They're doing jobs American just won't do," or

-- "Our housekeeper, Lupe, is like family."

(2) Is a primary challenge unlikely to flip a Republican seat to the Democrats?

(3) Am I fairly certain the challenger is smart enough to avoid the (apparently) rocky shoals of being asked about abortion in the case of rape?

There are at least three Republican primary candidates who pass this test with flying colors. They're smart, attractive, articulate and unlikely to ever use the phrase "legitimate rape."

No incumbent Republican senators are in jeopardy -- the one Senate race is for a seat currently held by a Democrat, and the other two races are for House seats in reasonably safe Republican districts.

Finally, all three races represent the battle at the heart of the Republican Party: Are we the party of soulless businessmen who care nothing about the country but only want higher profits for themselves? Or are we the party of middle-class and working-class Americans?

If you don't think the Republican Party should speak exclusively for Wall Street, Silicon Valley and the Chamber of Commerce, then you have to support:

State legislator Tillis championed a bill making it easier for North Carolina employers to hire foreign workers. Instead of temporary guest workers coming in for a few months a year to do farm work, Tillis' bill expanded "farm labor" to "all industries," and expanded "seasonal" to "nine months."

This wasn't an idle vote cast thoughtlessly: After the Republican governor vetoed Tillis' job-killing bill, Tillis led the legislature to override his veto.

Tillis has been well repaid by business interests. North Carolinians can repay him for driving down their wages on May 6.

Frank Roche, who is challenging two-term incumbent Renee Ellmers, speaks more knowledgeably about immigration than almost any sitting member of Congress. (After two decades in international banking in New York, he moved to North Carolina and became an economics professor and talk-radio host -- so he can talk.)

Roche has this crazy idea that a nation's immigration policies should be good for the citizens of that country. (Somebody get this guy in leather restraints!)

By contrast, his opponent, Rep. Ellmers, has dedicated herself to supporting the needs of her rich donors by being strident, rude and utterly cliched on the subject of immigration.

Naturally, she is supported by Facebook billionaire Mark Zuckerberg -- because who cares about the needs of North Carolina workers more than a Silicon Valley one-hit wonder seeking cheap foreign labor? (I'm sure Zuckerberg has the very best interests of the country at heart.)

Every exchange Ellmers has about immigration seems to end in a blizzard of shouts and insults. After failing to tear at the heartstrings of talk radio's Laura Ingraham with tales of rich farmers who need cheap foreign labor, Ellmers shouted that Ingraham was "ignorant" and "emotional."

About a week later, Ellmers denounced a constituent who criticized her on immigration, telling him that he didn't have "any damn facts" and was full of "hatred and vitriol."

(Zuckerberg apparently pays his politicians better than he pays his computer programmers.)

For the cherry on top, both Ellmers and Tillis go around claiming they're opposed to amnesty -- while doing everything they can to sneak foreign workers into North Carolina.

So at least they know amnesty is not popular with voters. Here's an idea! Instead of running candidates who have to lie about their position on immigration, let's run Republicans who actually agree with the voters!

Sucking up to businessmen may have brought Tillis and Ellmers a lot of campaign cash, but it's unlikely to help them with North Carolina's population, which, by the way, is 22 percent black. Recall that Mitt Romney won an astounding 20 percent of the young black male vote by being the toughest presidential candidate on immigration in 50 years. (I guess they do want the jobs "Americans just won't do.")

You don't have to be an economics professor to know that bringing in millions of workers is not "an economic boon" to the workers already here. (If only we could bring in millions of workers to compete for Cantor's job.)

Brat responded to Cantor's baby-talk, saying immigration "lowers wages, adds to unemployment, and the taxpayer pays the tab for any benefits to folks coming in."

Republicans aren't at much risk of losing any of these seats, with or without primary fights. But we'll lose them all within a decade if Republicans like Tillis, Ellmers and Cantor aren't stopped.

Brannon, Roche and Brat are the candidates true patriots should support with everything they have.

Polls show that most Americans want something in between.Close the border. Allow entry only to those who have legal permission. Ensure that employers hire only those foreign nationals who have valid green cards. Permit those who have resided here for a while, who are without criminal records and are employed, to apply inside the U.S. for either a pathway to citizenship or legal residence.

Require that those residing here unlawfully pay a fine for breaking the law and wait in line until immigrants who followed the law are first processed. Reform legal immigration to make it ethnically blind and predicated on skill sets and education rather than on proximity to our borders or on family connections to those residing here unlawfully....The obstacles to reform are not bogeymen who want to deport everyone, but the disingenuous who prefer to deport no one. The culprits are not mustachioed villains who want to close the border, but the more sophisticated who want it to stay wide open. And the real reactionaries are not those seeking to make ethnicity incidental to legal immigration, but those who want to ensure that it remains absolutely essential.

They know Obama will grant amnesty. Either next year after this Nov election or before he leaves office.

Yes, ownership of a country that has both assets and liabilities.

Doug's Dream Act:

Welcome to America. At the signing of this agreement you now are a voting citizen of a country that owes US$18 trillion in debt among 318 million US citizens, equal to about $60,000 per man, woman and child. If your extended family here is (let's say) 17 people and you accept this offer, then you are all now jointly and severally liable for 17 x 60,000 with your first monthly installment due at signing. You are now part owner of Yellowstone Park, the Grand Canyon and the largest Navy in the world. We suggest you use your vote in a way that protects these assets, grows jobs, keeps your future tax liability low, and holds the other 318 million accountable for their share of the debt too. If you decline, we understand and will charge you only for the immediate cost of your return travel. Good luck.

I haven't the time this AM to review this site. Looks like it might give us more info on illegal immigration. A colleague told me he heard illegals commit crimes way out of proportion to their numbers but when I did a very quick search this AM I find one review titled something to the effect that their crimes are blown way out of proportion and another that says their crimes are quite scary. So finding the truth among the agendas is not easy. And of course no one is really counting anyway. The Feds under this WH can not be counted on to tell us the truth about what they at least really think is going on.

I'm all for defending our borders and our laws, but given my extensive travels in and studies about Mexico and living in LA (where my first job was as a private PI who had to track down lots of illegals) combined with my comfort in the Spanish language I feel like I speak from a better-informed-than-average POV and from the POV I would say that lots of illegals are not leeches or thugs-- they come here because they are fg desperate and want to feed their families. They work hard, harder than most Americans are willing to work under tougher conditions than most Americans are willing to tolerate and dream of becoming Americans. Yes we have to defend our borders and our laws, but these are not bad people; typically quite the contrary.

The problem with arguing this out is that both sides are right. There is the logical / rule of law side: We are nothing if we are not a nation of laws, with borders, rules, citizenship that means something and enforcement. And there is the emotional / compassionate side. Every person Hispanic or at all connected with Hispanic community knows someone whose family and lives as they know it would be upending by real enforcement of existing law.

It defies logic that you can have a nation without borders and enforced laws.

It defies compassion and will lose elections if you promise to make neighborhood sweeps, break up families and make mass deportations of people connected, established and well-known in the community.

From the conservative side, if you don't have a rule of law, you don't have a nation. But if you get real tough on immigration, you will lose all elections and lose your nation. If you appease and say just this once for the umpteenth time, you also will lose all future elections and lose your country.

On the liberal side, if you grant everyone citizenship, they will vote for you and will have eternal power. Then you can run this nation into the ground, same as where they came from and you will have no nation as you knew it. Who cares about that; they stopped reading at eternal power.

Without at least the perception of compassion, you will lose all elections. That is why I respected Marco Rubio's attempt to get involved with tough bargaining to make whatever comes through next a better deal for the country. It didn't work out for him or for the process but it was an attempt to acknowledge and work with both sides of the conundrum.

One of the political problems with immigration is the same with state to state migration - people come in for the benefits of economic freedom and then vote the failed belief system of the place they left.